SILVER WILLOW WATER CO-OP LTD v VERMILLION RIVER (COUNTY), 2018 ABQB 952
3.15: Originating application for judicial review
13.5: Variation of time periods
This case arose from an Originating Application for Judicial Review by the Applicant/Cross-Respondent, Silver Willow Water Co-Op Ltd. (“Silver Willow”), in regards to a decision made by the County of Vermillion River. The Respondent/Cross-Applicant, Vermillion River (County) (“Vermillion River”), responded with a Cross-Application to strike or summarily dismiss the Originating Application.
Michalyshyn J. began by confirming that Rule 3.15(2) requires an Originating Application for Judicial Review to be filed within six months of the decision being challenged. The Court then briefly stated that Rule 13.5, which allows parties to extend timelines or for the Court to do the same where permissible, does not apply in this instance.
The Court determined that the Originating Application for Judicial Review was not served in time in accordance with Rules 3.15(3)(b) and (c). Those Rules require the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General or Attorney General to be served “as the circumstances require” and that all other individuals affected by the Application be served as well. The Applicants conceded that neither the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General nor the Attorney General had been served but that the words “as the circumstances require” could be interpreted to make service on these parties optional. Michalyshyn J. disagreed with this submission, clarifying that the term “as the circumstances require” actually speaks to which of those bodies must be served; it does not make service on one or both optional.
Further, the Court rejected Silver Willow’s argument that even though certain individuals affected by the Application had not been served with it, most of these individuals would have had knowledge of the Application because they are members of Silver Willow. The Court clarified that having knowledge of an Application is not the same as receiving service and furthermore, it was apparent that some affected individuals had neither received service of the Application nor did they have knowledge of it.
The Court concluded by granting the cross-Application to dismiss the Originating Application, and granted Costs to Vermillion River.View CanLII Details